Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do not know. But I know that the school, acting as in parentis locis, has an obligation to limit the contact between criminals and students.
Maybe you don't care if your children is around criminals whose backgrounds maybe questionable. But many other parents do and more importantly the school itself is held to a higher standard.
This is why anyone connected to the school, including teachers, janitors, etc all have to pass background checks. Why should someone working in the classroom be exempt from that just because they have a child of their own?
Yes, they are allowed on school property. They are not allowed to act as classroom volunteers.
What do you mean privacy? If a parent CHOOSES to volunteer, than they are given the criteria for which their background is going to be checked. At that point if they do not want the principal or secretary or whoever manages the volunteer to know the results of the background check they can choose not to be checked and therefore not to be a classroom volunteer.
And yes, perjury is a criminal offense.
By privacy, I mean are there procedures in place for the administration to not pass the results on to whomever they feel might be interested?
What does a perjury conviction have to do with your ability to escort your own child on a field trip?
By privacy, I mean are there procedures in place for the administration to not pass the results on to whomever they feel might be interested?
What does a perjury conviction have to do with your ability to escort your own child on a field trip?
But you are not escorting JUST your own child, but rather many other children.
And if you lie under oath, where you swear not to lie, that is a glaring character flaw.
Would you want a teacher who was convicted of felonies teaching your children?
As for privacy, if a parent knows they are going to fail the background check, why would they go through with it? And as for passing on, yes, the administration would notify the pertinent teachers that Parent X did not pass the background check. There is no need to go into detail beyond that.
I think the whole background check thing goes too far, yes.
You can have glaring character flaws without being convicted of anything. What matters to me is a person's performance as a teacher.
It's one of those things that I think should have a common sense application, that really doesn't.
Well thank goodness you are not in charge.
If school employees have to be checked (which is a good idea btw) than anyone working with students under the approval of the school should be checked too.
No one is claiming that a background check is the beginning, middle and end of protecting children but it is a good starting point. There is no reason to put felons in the classroom.
But you are not escorting JUST your own child, but rather many other children.
And if you lie under oath, where you swear not to lie, that is a glaring character flaw.
Would you want a teacher who was convicted of felonies teaching your children?
As for privacy, if a parent knows they are going to fail the background check, why would they go through with it? And as for passing on, yes, the administration would notify the pertinent teachers that Parent X did not pass the background check. There is no need to go into detail beyond that.
I don't know, maybe because a 15 year old conviction for something irrelevant to kids shouldn't prevent them from doing a good thing?
My husband has a very old conviction for carrying a concealed deadly weapon. He got stopped many years ago in Hollywood with a small pocket knife with a flip blade, apparently against the law. He's a carpenter and always carries a pocket knife. You think that's a good reason to exclude him?
Also, just telling teachers that someone failed a background check runs the risk of completely besmirching someone's reputation. If they've been convicted then they've paid whatever price.
As to sex offenders, there's a separate registry for them.
If school employees have to be checked (which is a good idea btw) than anyone working with students under the approval of the school should be checked too.
No one is claiming that a background check is the beginning, middle and end of protecting children but it is a good starting point. There is no reason to put felons in the classroom.
And in many circumstances, there's no good reason not to.
And in many circumstances, there's no good reason not to.
Actually there is a good reason, they are FELONS. What possible reason is there to allow a criminal to volunteer in school? There are plenty of other volunteers, who are inherently less of a risk to members of the school community.
So what possible reason is there to take the risk of allowing felons in the classroom?
I don't know, maybe because a 15 year old conviction for something irrelevant to kids shouldn't prevent them from doing a good thing?
Actually that is a very good reason for keeping people WHO DO NOT NEED TO BE THERE out of the classroom. There are plenty of other good things to do that do not require you to be in the classroom. Do those instead.
Quote:
My husband has a very old conviction for carrying a concealed deadly weapon. He got stopped many years ago in Hollywood with a small pocket knife with a flip blade, apparently against the law. He's a carpenter and always carries a pocket knife. You think that's a good reason to exclude him?
Something is a little off here.
There is no state in this country where a true pocketknife would ever meet the grounds of a felony. Which statute was he convicted under?
So yes, if he was really convicted of a weapons felony, yes keep him out of school. This is exactly why a background checks are necessary. No one should just take someone's word for these things.
Quote:
Also, just telling teachers that someone failed a background check runs the risk of completely besmirching someone's reputation. If they've been convicted then they've paid whatever price.
As to sex offenders, there's a separate registry for them.
You do realize you are talking about CHOOSING to volunteer in the classroom. If you don't want a background check DON'T VOLUNTEER. Then nothing will be disclosed. But it is absolutely relevant to tell a teacher when a parent does not pass a background check because of a felony associated with a WEAPON.
Actually there is a good reason, they are FELONS. What possible reason is there to allow a criminal to volunteer in school? There are plenty of other volunteers, who are inherently less of a risk to members of the school community.
So what possible reason is there to take the risk of allowing felons in the classroom?
Shouting the word FELONS does not make someone who is no risk to the children suddenly some kind of scary boogity boogity monster that should be kept away.
There are not "plenty"of other volunteers in numerous districts. You have people who could make a real difference in some of the worse off districts that are being kept out for no good reason - the word felon does not necessarily define a whole person and I'm guessing there's a zero tolerance policy in place that doesn't allow for discretion on the part of the Principal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
